BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 08 - 10:24 PM

But I'd have somebody I could trust accompany her and Bill--to make sure they were doing it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 08:40 AM

Hopefully she'll win South Dakota!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 09:18 AM

Some people (no names, of course) never learn.

1) South Dakota primary, even if Hillary won it, would not make the difference in delegates.

2) It seems likely she will lose it.

Also every day,, she and her team seem to throw more poison in the well they intend to drink from--as well as thoroughly destroying her own political future.   They obviously are not thinking.

No wonder she attracts certain people, who also don't think.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 09:59 AM

Most recent example of Hillary supporters not thinking is the planned protest in DC this weekend--which will do nothing but inflame the already high frustration and anger of her partisans--with no result.   But the Obama people are smart enough not to organize a counter-protest.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:33 AM

I agree with you, Ron, in that the Clintons are dangerously close to ruining their political careers... If they don't quit after Obama has the required delegates in his corner than whatever level of credibility they have will go down the tubes... Not to mention any level of trust that folks will have in them...

And, yes, I mean both of the Clintons...

They have one chance left to salvage their careers and that will occur in 6 days...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:36 AM

I can hardly wait for them to ruin their political careers, frankly. Go, Hill and Bill! Do it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:19 AM

Actually, why would they care? The best thing that can happen for the American people is for the Clintons to go off and form a competing party. That's the one last hope the people have driving a wedge between the two posturing parties they have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:56 AM

I'm all for that. :-) Then you'd have 3 posturing parties. The more the merrier, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:01 PM

Well, you might find there'd be less room for posturing, and one of them would actually be forced to do something.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:23 PM

With Social Conservatism & Social Liberalism there is room left for one party to go right down the middle.
Happens everywhere else and in all honesty the extreme leftists are usually the least successful.
People are more concerned with a government's refusal to take a higher moral ground on social issues than they are with "Government Interference" on the same issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:54 PM

HILLARY HAS GONE TOO FAR


She is calling for protesters to descend on the Democratic National meeting next week to demonstrate against (Obama) virtually any decision regarding the Florida and Michigan delegates.

The visuals that will be created will have a life of their own and further divide the party and this nation.
All the Republicans need to do is send a few goons to start a riot.


She was always a weasel but now her tactics are like the Bush tactics during the denied recount of Florid's 2000 votes.


Hillary said that the potential for a RFK disruption of the candidate race could change everything so why should she quit now.

She should quit and realize how ashamed she has made us.
If she has a conscience to be ashamed for her own behavior she should in fact apologize and then quit.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:57 PM

Hopefully she will win in Puerto Rico!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 02:22 PM

You're dreaming, Jim Lad. There IS no social liberalism in the USA, and no (major) party that represents any such platform. What you have is rabid bonehead conservatism not pretending to be any different...the Republicans....and rabid bonehead conservatism pretending that it's some kind of alternative to that...the Democrats. That's why the Democrats look so weak all the time...they're pretending not to be what they actually are...corporate servants of the military-industrial complex. The Republicans don't have that problem. They're right wing imperialist bastards, corporate servants of the military-industrial complex, and they are openly proud of it and don't try to hide it! ;-) The Democrats try to hide it. That doesn't work so well.

The rest of the world observes the farce in amazement, because you Americans just don't get it. Your parties are both highly conservative and militaristic. One of them pretends that it isn't, that's all. Much the same thing has happened in the UK since Tony Blair hijacked "New Labour" and took the country into an unprovoked war alongside America...but against the wishes of a great majority of UK citizens and in gross violation of international law.

The man who presented a genuinely liberal platform in your 2008 election was Dennis Kucinich. He had no hope of getting the Democratic nomination. He was deliberately shut out of several televised debates, but he'd have had no hope even if he'd been there. No one who is genuinely liberal in their policies has any hope of leading either the Democrats or the Republicans because they are both QUITE conservative and they are both utterly corrupt as well, and they serve the military-industrial complex which is NOT one bit liberal and never will be.

Like Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul also had the guts to speak in favour of demilitarizing America to a great extent and bringing American troops home from foreign lands, and returning to the original principles enshrined in your Constitution. Those two guys were the real alternative in the 2008 election...and neither one of them ever had a chance of being elected president, because the $ySStem (which owns the Mainstream Media) will simply not allow people like that to ever have a chance of being elected president.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 29 May 08 - 02:27 PM

That is the problem. I and many others believe that she is a sociopath. They do not feel shame. Their consciences are defective and some probably not there at all. Don't hold your breath. And why is this only becoming breathtakingly obvious to people now when it was in plain view throughout her 35 years of experience ready on day one? Hope and pray with all your might that they find a way to contain her and elect Obama. No VP never..mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:01 PM

Sorry. I thought the Democrats were pro abortion, pro gay marriage etc..
Hillary should be encouraging the demonstrations.
Anything short of counting every vote is just fixing it for Obama.
You know, from the outside looking in, this one doesn't pass the sniff test.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:19 PM

There's nothing sociopathic about Hillary. But this is the type of charge often leveled against women who break barriers. Even by women who are liberated themselves. It's one of those ingrained things people have to recognize and resist. Where a man is assertive, a woman called bitchy and overly aggressive.

It's time for change, and another man in the White House isn't enough change. With all due respect.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:21 PM

Jim Lad:

What part of the agreement endorsed by the Clinton organization to discipline the states who bolted fromt he party planning (by disavowing their delegates) do you not understand? What do you think would have led the Hillary group to endorse it at the time, and then leave their name on the ballots and now claim that the delegates should be awarded based on a race in which only one candidate was campaigning?

Hmmmmmm?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:25 PM

another man in the White House isn't enough change. With all due respect.


With all due respect, Mag, I think the change desired cannot be anchored to gender. Who cares what equipment the PResident has? No, the critical thing is how they think and what priciples they maintain.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:25 PM

It just simply makes good political sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:27 PM

There is a difference, and it is a necessary difference, needed for a long time now.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:44 PM

Jim Lad, there were always be frothy little divisive issues that are waved around to get people worked up, such as the abortion and gay marriage issues you alluded to. They are just the sprinkling on the cake and they are intended to snag the votes of certain special interest groups and manipulate people's emotions to vote for this or that candidate. They absorb the same kind of minds, I think, which can't wait for the next issue of People Magazine to come out.

The cake itself, however, is mainstream conservative policy backed by the military-industrial complex and BOTH the Democrats and Republicans are tied into it all the way. It's about BIG matters of great importance, like invading other countries, pandering to the pharmaceutical industry, pandering to the military industries, not providing your public with a universal health care system such as exists in most other modern western nations, determining national trade policy and energy policy, those sorts of things.

It's about dollars and cents and guns and butter, not your petty disagreements with other people about what constitutes "good morality" or "God's will" and what doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:56 PM

Being a sociopath is different than being powerful, bitchy or aggressive. You can be all of the above and not be a sociopath. You can be mean and nasty and not be one. There are plenty of powerful women whom I have not seen called sociopaths who have broken barriers...C. Rice, M. Albright, M. Robinson, I. Ghandi, etc. etc. It is not a huge jump say from Secretary of State to president of U.S. It will happen sooner or later that a women gets it. Just not this one, as I add my voice to the chorus of hope. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 08 - 04:13 PM

If it was Obama who had little or no chance of getting the nomination and he was threatening to hold demonstrations this weekend against Clinton he would need alot of secret service protection because you can bet that it would rile up some nutball who also happened to own a gun...

Not only that, if the roles were reversed, Obama would be getting alot more pressure to quit than Hillary is getting... Might of fact, I cannot see Hillary saying what Obama has said about respecting the other's choice to stay in the race...

While this is all very interesting to watch play out there is an aspect of it that is a tad sickening... Kinda like watching a snake eat a mouse...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:11 PM

The whole "Get out of the race" thing was an Obama tactic and has gone on for months.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:23 PM

How one sees Hillary OR Obama's behaviour is entirely dependent on one's prior prejudice for or against Hillary or Obama.

People will not own up to their own prejudices honestly. They're usually not even aware that they ARE prejudiced. (And I am not referring to racism when I say that...just to prejudice, period. Prejudice against a person's personality...not their race profile.)

Some people here decided from the getgo not to like Hillary. They will almost always find fault in what she says or does. Some people here decided from the getgo not to like Obama. They will almost always find fault in what he says or does.

They are not being objective about it, they're just harping on their emotional need to continue to attack somebody they decided not to like at some point in the past.

If the person they like did and said the very same kind of things as the person they don't like...the same things they object to when the person they don't like is doing them...they would applaud those things when done or said by the person they like.

It's funny. It's also rather sad. And 99% of people never even know that they are doing it.

That's why it mostly adds up to just a bunch of bellicose hot air from a bunch of people full of ill will against somebody...whether that somebody be Hillary, McCaine, Nader, Kucinich, or Obama.

And that's what's so ugly about the election campaign. And who panders to it? The mass media, both parties, and most of the politicians themselves. They who pander to it most shamelessly and blatantly are the worst of the lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:46 PM

The US may not be #1 as far as the health and education of its citizens are concerned but at least we are 75th.

YYYAAAAY were 75th were 75th were 75th were 75th were 75th god bless america

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:21 PM

"from the getgo...."

More drivel.

Some of us have not cared for Hillary for years--but for a very good reason. For us, the Iraq war is #1 issue. Hillary voted in favor of authorizing GWB to use force against Iraq. Lots of us knew it was a disastrous move--before the fact. She claims she didn't have enough information (among other flimsy excuses).

Fine. John Edwards also voted in favor of the force resolution.

But he soon realized he'd made a grievous error. And said so publicly.

It's been pulling teeth to get her to even come close to admitting what is obvious to us--(and now to Edwards and many others who voted in favor of the resolution). A resolution which has resulted in over 4,000 US deaths needlessly--and deaths of uncounted others.

Her stubbornness on this point, more than anything else, has caused her downfall. She forced the anti-war movement, which might well have been glad to support her--to find another home. When it came down to Obama and Hillary, no question who they would back.


But she's added to her problem in an amazing number of ways--and continues to do so.




I'd like to hear--anybody's-- similarly logical explanation of why he or she didn't like Obama from the start--the "getgo".

To compare the two is specious moral relativism. Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:23 PM

Jim:

Why do you say that in light of the fact that it was Barack who repeatedly said she had the right to run as long as she wanted to?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:41 PM

Why would you think I was talking about you, Ron? You have no need to take it personally.

I am simply observing the very common tendency of a great many people in this world (most people, in fact), which is that they speak primarily from their long established prejudices, which are very frequently partisan or nationalistic in nature, and that it colors the way they interpret what any politician does or says...and that they are accordingly far from fair or objective in their judgements of what the politician says or does.

I trust you can often see this dynamic at work in those with whom you disagree radically about politics? I bet you see it plain as day in that case! ;-)

Ever notice, for instance, how Riginslinger does that in regards to Obama? I know you have noticed it, Ron. It wouldn't matter what Obama said or did, he could do anything...Riginslinger would find a way to criticize it and it would be one more proof to him that Obama is no good as a Democratic candidate.

It's hilarious. It's tawdry. It's predictable. It's sad.

Now examine yourself for similar prejudicial tendencies. I would think that we all have them. Even maybe you! I examine myself for them frequently, and I know that I do things like that too sometimes. I become quite prejudiced and prejudging of this or that person of thing. I catch myself doing these things...and I laugh at my own frailty. Self-awareness, Ron, is something worth working on for anyone. It's way tougher than endlessly attacking the other guy.

One thing I love about Obama is that I have seen quite strong tendencies in him toward self-criticism and self-awareness. I see no such tendency in Hillary or McCain...but that might be because I'm prejudiced against them...or it might really be that they just ARE incapable of self-criticism.

I get tired of people who do nothing but ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK against other people. What they say strikes me as drivel. They're like a dog on a chain that barks and threatens. After awhile you just stop listeing to the dog, because it has nothing good to say.

The dog is not self-aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 30 May 08 - 03:20 AM

Obama doesn't get to say who runs.
His campaign started calling for Hillary to quit months ago.
It's their idea and a very dirty tactic.
The media (also part of his team) chimed in and for the most part has kept it going.
The man is a little too anxious about facing voters and has stood in the way of the folks in Michigan & Florida. He knows that he can never win either in a general election.
Tomorrow, he will try all he can to get enough super delegates to carry him over the finish line.
Problem is, super delegates can change their minds and until there is a final tally at the convention, the running totals don't count for much at all.
Now; How about that church of his?
Back in the news again.
The whole congregation up on their feet.
Mocking Hillary for feeling entitled because she's wh*te.
And the guy who's leading them on?
The same Catholic Priest who stood up for the good Reverend Wright on CNN right before he spoke to the press gallery.
Another good friend of Obama's.
If this doesn't make you nervous then I swear the man will be walking on water come Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:55 AM

"One thing I love about Obama is that I have seen quite strong tendencies in him toward self-criticism and self-awareness."

Hey Little Hawk!   Can I borrow your glasses?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 08:20 AM

"Riginslinger would find a way to criticize it and it would be one more proof to him that Obama is no good as a Democratic candidate."


                   I think things have gotten a little bent out of shape. The point I started out to make was that "I didn't think Obama could win as a Democratic candidate."

                   But people continue to ask, "What is it you don't like about him?" And, of course, one searches for answers. Obama started this campaign as a blank page, but recently some things have come up that concern me, and maybe others. If these things had been known going into Iowa, I think we would be in a very different place right now.

                  All of that having been said, I didn't mean to indicate that I thought Obama was "no good" as a candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:51 AM

Jim Lad:

I suspect you are fuekling your fears and doubts with distorted information and bad calculations thereon. Your assertions are not borne out by facts. Possibly you are letting yourself get wound up by foaming newscasters? They do have that effect on one sometimes.


Q

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Point taken, Rig. I understand that your main concern is that Obama (presumably) can't win the election. I don't know whether you are correct on that or not. We'll see. If he runs in November, that is...it hasn't happened yet.

Jim Lad - I am willing to lend you my glasses if you are willing to travel to Ontario. I will lend them to you for a couple of hours, okay? Then you have to give them back. Deal? ;-) I'll even buy you a donut and coffee at Tim Hortons.

You'd be amazed by how "liberal" people are in Canada, compared to the USA. Heh! It would drive you right nuts. There isn't more than maybe 17% of our population that would vote Republican in your upcoming election if they had the chance. Hillary seems to be the most popular of the 3 main candidates up here, followed closely by Obama. McCain couldn't get elected to clean outhouses in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:33 AM

It is funny, in a sense, the differences that are found between the people who support Hillary as opposed to those who support Obama, when most of their stated objectives are so similar.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:55 AM

Well, yes, it is. One reason, of course, is the competitive flames stirred by news media whose revenues depend on putting up pictures of controversy, sex, and violence wherever possible. The other reason is that people form intuitive certainties about their candidates which in turn drive strong, deeply felt emotional responses when challenged even though for many it is not easy to articulate what the actual data are they were assimilating in their fast appraisal.

Obama's talent for well-formed rhetoric is an excellent example. It is easy, listneing to it, to conclude instinctively that the man is big-hearted, highly-principled, intelligent. But it might not be easy to point to whatr it was int he rhetoric that gave you that impression. This is why Hillary's larynx cost her some votes here and there -- under tension she gets into higher registers which makes her sound shrill.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: mg
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:57 AM

That priest was disgusting and does this church, and others who get political at the pulpit, have tax exempt status? If you want to have politicians preach, have them at the church basement for tea but I do not want to pay taxes to hear that sort of crap. First screachy priest I have ever heard and I hope I never hear another one. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:58 AM

I love that first paragraph you wrote, Amos. Right on.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:01 PM

Move to Canada, mg. ;-) You will be spared further such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:29 PM

Little Hawk: I'm in Victoria.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:31 PM

But if I take you up on it I'm having a beer with Bruce on the way over.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 05:11 PM

Okay, Jim. ;-) I bet we'd get along better in 3D than we do on the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 May 08 - 05:47 PM

JimLad - You are listening to way too much Hannity.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:47 AM

"problem is, superdelegates can change their minds."

Yet more drivel.

You neglect to mention that they have absolutely no reason to switch to Hillary--why would they possibly want somebody who can't manage money, control her own mouth--it's not a question of surrogates--no surrogate mentioned possible assassination as a reason to stay in the race. Etc.

And they are thoroughly annoyed at her hypocrisy on the MI-FL issue. And her supporters' attempt to blackmail Nancy Pelosi by refusing contributions unless she gets her way.

And tomorrow in DC we'll see the finishing touches to her campaign when her supporters again make fools of themselves, this time protesting, and no doubt citing the Declaration of Independence, Selma, Zimbabwe, etc--thereby proving that, like Hillary, they believe in the "kitchen sink" approach--but not in sense and logic.

That spectacle is likely to push all the superdelegates that he needs over to Obama.

And as I mentioned earlier, Hillary has destroyed her own campaign quite handily--the worst error being to refuse to admit her mistake on the force authorization which led directly to the Iraq war.

And if any brilliant person would like to cite polls as indicating she has a better chance against McCain, it should be noted that many Obama supporters-- feeling generous, since it will never happen-- are willing to say they would vote for her if she were the nominee. But her supporters--yes, her bitter supporters--are not yet willing to reconcile themselves to her defeat--so they tell pollsters they will not vote for Obama. (Except in California, it seems, where her supporters are coming to recognize reality.)

But when it comes down in the fall to a choice between McCain--and his Supreme Court choices, attitude toward Roe v Wade, the Iraq war, health care reform etc.--and Obama, the vast majority of her supporters, despite what they may say now, will support Obama.

Which he has made easier by running a far more positive campaign than she even tried to do.

And as I also mentioned earlier, once you get into the guilt by association approach, nobody comes out clean. Sure as hell not Hillary--as we've already explored.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:48 AM

Hannity?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:49 AM

"in the race?"

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 08 - 08:28 AM

Well, well, well...

Ain't this a fine kettle of dead fish that the Clintons have stirred up??? If the rules committee comes up with a Clinton friendly delegate split in the Florida and/or Michagan primaries today, even if it's some thing like 75/25 in their favor, then the 25% will put Obama over the top???

Thems is just the facts as I see 'um...

But beyond the facts here is the more important questions of all the "ism's" that have been thrown around if the Dems have any chance of beating McCain... You know, if you are for Obama that makes you a sexist and if you are for Hillary that nmakes you a racist... This is how this campaign has played out... Okay, maybe neither camp wanted it to play out that way but that's the way it has evolved...

I'm for Obama and don't consider myself a sexist... I can think of a lot of women who I sould love to see as president... Actually, maybe I am a sexist because I think that women, in general, would do a much better job of working things out without thinking that going to war would be "kinda fun"... I'm sorry, but Hillary doesn't impress me as one of those women... When she said we could bomb Iran into oblivion, I think she meant it...

Herein lies the Dems, and most importantly Clinton's, biggest challenge: convoncing her supporters that all Obama supporters aren't sexist at all but maybe folks who support Obama for other reasons, not excluding his views on the war...

No matter, if things go as they should then Obama will be the presumptive Dem nominee by the end of the day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:31 PM

Whole thing has been rigged by the Democrat insiders right from the start.
Many of you said this right in the beginning but that was before everyone became so entrenched in campaigning for the candidate of their choice.
Today, the party will divide the delegates in a way that will guarantee an Obama victory and that's okay because to give the advantage to Hillary would be somehow wrong?
Feel united yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 01:19 PM

It wouldn't be "somehow wrong". it would be mathematically wrong.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:26 PM

Jim, the entire election process in BOTH the Democratic and Republican Parties is normally rigged by political insiders from the start to the finish. That's how it works. ;-)

(The only part where it gets a little dicey is this: the insiders usually have some behind-the-scenes power struggles going on amongst themselves as to who wins the controlling hand in the great rigged agenda and that can complicate the issue considerably as to who finally comes out on top and determines the running of the next administration, but it WILL be a coalition of insiders who does, be assured. Yes, your shadowy overlords will still get to rule after they have fought it out in the backrooms amongst themselves.)

The job of the mass media is to get the public all enthused and all worked up about it regardless, and full of hope and glory, just so they get the idea that they still have some real input into what happens, and that they still have a genuine democracy.

Otherwise the general public might get the idea that they're completely powerless. And that could lead to sullenness, loss of confidence, bitterness, even despair. That would be bad for effective maintenance of the ongoing psychological fantasy that is normally referred to as "the American Dream".

The insiders work hard to maintain that fantasy, no matter what, because it is the thin curtain that hides their presence while they pull the political strings.

If Obama is an insider himself...or a tool of the insiders...he will do exactly what he's told to do after he's elected...if he's elected, that is. If he's not (an insider or their willing tool), then God help him.

As for Hill and Bill, I feel 100% certain they are insiders, and major ones at that. I have no doubt of it. And McCain? He's either an insider or he's a willing tool.

Just my opinion, of course. Opinions are free.